Stuff

ICM have resumed polling for the Guardian. Topline figures for their first post-election poll are CON 41%(-3), LAB 43%(+2), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 3%(+1) – changes are from the election result.

In terms of methodology, ICM have dropped the turnout model that produced such large, but ultimately incorrect, Tory leads as well as their political interest weighting. This isn’t going all the way back to their 2015 methodology (ICM also made a change to how they reallocated don’t knows who refused to give a past vote and, of course, switched from telephone to online), but it’s a long way in that direction.

310 Responses to “ICM/Guardian – CON 41, LAB 43, LDEM 7, UKIP 3”

The Yougov tables agree with the trend we have seen in most polls since the election

16% of 2017 Tory voters have moved into “Don’t know”
Leave are the highest “Don’t know” group. (17%)

Its becoming more clear with every poll that many leave voters only voted Tory in 2017 to secure Brexit, and they have no intention of ever supporting them again – they are not natural conservative voters, and Brexit has not turned them into conservative supporters.

I remain perplexed why we are not yet seeing a similar unwinding of the Labour 2017 vote, as I think there was a similar 10% boost to the Labour 2017 vote by Remain voters who are not naturally Labour. So far it is looking like Labour has converted them into Labour supporters.

Also note the methodology change
“Methodology note: Our political polls are now weighted to the 2017 election result. We have also returned to our usual practice between elections of removing respondents who select don’t know to the voting intention question from the headline figure rather than re-allocating them, a method that closely tracked the results of our MRP model during the election campaign. UKIP were overstated in our final results and, given their level of support at the election we have returned to our pre-2015 practice of not including UKIP in the main prompt and grouping them with “other parties”

So many Tories moving into unknown is having a big impact as there is no re-allocation back to past vote like we have seen some polling companies do before.

There is an ancient adage on UKPR – “Don’t look at the Scottish crossbreaks” :-)

More seriously, I think this poll adds to my hypothesis that voting patterns are strongly influenced by the prevailing narratives that people receive.

Wide fluctuations are likely when fewer people are strongly attached to a particular political stance.

That’s probably particularly noticeable in Scotland, where there is little policy difference between SNP and SLab on many issues.

If the focus is on UK matters, then SLab is likely to benefit, if on Scottish issues, then the SNP will tend to benefit – though after 10 years in power, it would be surprising if voting for something else seemed more exciting.

Especially under FPTP (Westminster and Holyrood constituencies) where minor alterations of opinion can have significant consequences, I would be hesitant of making any predictions as to likely beneficiaries/losers.

From a purely personal point of view, as an indy (not an SNP) partisan, SNP losing elections now might be no bad thing!

While they are managerially very competent, they don’t excite any more – so a spell in opposition might well suit Scotland (if not their career politicians!)

“Schrödinger’s essay on life using the concept of entropy is fascinating, and actually created a basis of several methodologies in micro biology.
However, I think we are really getting off, although I still think that the second law of thermodynamics is valid for polling as it is a closed system. :-)”

——–

Do you mean the “What is Life” thing? It has a chapter on Order, Disorder and Entropy. One of many books I have always meant to get around to reading, but keeps slipping off the radar. But you’ve convinced me I need to make a point of checking out more of this stuff!!

I think you might be right about the second law and polling. Wouldn’t be surprised if polling was summat else that exported entropy…

@OLDNAT ” “Britain promises EU citizens’ rights will be irreversible and enshrined in international law”
I remember promises by the UK that the Sewel Convention would be made permanent, and enshrined in law.
What about the 1666 charter by Charles II guaranteeing free access to English waters forever to fishermen from Zeebrugge? Is this guarantee to have similar validity?”

Of course not! No Parliament can bind another. But it makes for nice headlines nonetheless.

The Buddha comprehensively dismantled the idea of permanence 2500 years ago anyhow…

Monochrome October,
“So it is done now. Yes, there is a window to argue that it should have been explicitly authorized or mandated, but after the furore with Gina Miller, I think that it is quite plain what the Will of Parliament was, so any case will revolve on the form rather than the substance of the Act, which could be addressed in a day in Parliament.”

Anything which requires addressing at all by parliament in a sense of correcting the act would invalidate an article 50 already given, because it would be an admission the act as passed was inadequate.

It would seem that the act does indeed fail to state that the Uk wishes to leave the EU, it simply says the PM is authorised to deliver notice to leave.

The case in the supreme court turned on the issue of whether constitutionally a decision of parliament could be overturned by any means except another decision of parliament. The court decided it could not, particularly by the decision of a crown official. The act would seem not to cure the problem raised in the case, that parliament must make the decision through an act.

OLD BAT
” “Britain promises EU citizens’ rights will be irreversible and enshrined in international law”

I listened to D.Davies appearance before the HOC Brexit Committee hearing yesterday. He came across as arrogant,, crafty, insolent and uncaring. The idea that this man represents the UK in negotiations with the EU dismays me almost more that the fact of there being any such negotiations.
At one point the statement was made that “The Uk Government gives (or gave) priority to the interests of UK citizens in Europe to EU citizens in the UK” and went unchallenged. How and why should the government or we as citizens give priority of one over the other?